Partly allowed

Society for Protection of Culture Heritage Environment Traditions and Promotion of National Awareness (Regd.) Also Known as [Sp-Chetna] v. Union of India

NGT9 Apr 2025IA No. 155/2025 in Original Application No. 1151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The National Green Tribunal addressed an application alleging violation of the Aravali Notification 1992 and illegal slum redevelopment by DDA in Kusumpur Pahadi. The court allowed the impleadment of Indraprastha Gas Limited.

What did the court decide?

IA No. 155/2025 (impleadment of IGL) is allowed; parties directed to file replies.

Society for Protection of Culture Heritage Environment… — Environment and Pollution | NGT (2025)

¶1

Item No. 28 Court No. 1

¶2

BEFORE THE NATIONAL GREEN TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI

¶3

Original Application No. 1151/2024

¶4

(I.A. No.206/2025, I.A. No. 156/2025 & I.A. No.155/2025)

¶5

Society for Protection of Culture, Heritage, Environment, Traditions and Promotion of National Awareness Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Union of India & Ors. Respondent(s)

¶8

Date of hearing: 09.04.2025

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA, CHAIRPERSON HON’BLE DR. A. SENTHIL VEL, EXPERT MEMBER Applicant: Mr. Vishnu Kesharwani, Advocate with Mr. Anil Sood, Applicant in Person Respondents: Mr. Gigi. C. George, Adv. for CGWA Ms. Prabhsahay Kaur, Ms. Deeksha L. Kakar & Mr. Rashneet Singh, Advs. for DDA Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta & Ms. Ananya Basudha, Advs. for R - 2 & 5

¶10

ORDER

¶11

In this Original Application (OA), applicant has raised the grievance about violation of Aravali Notification, 1992 and implementation of In-

¶12

Situ Slum Redevelopment and Rehabilitation Project by Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in Kusumpur Pahadi situated in Southern Central Ridge.

¶13

Respondent no.3-DDA has filed the reply dated 08.04.2025 stating that there is no proposal or further plan for implementation of the said proposal. This statement made in paragraph no.4 of the reply affidavit is as under:-

¶14

“ 4. At the further outset, it is stated that there is no proposal or further plan for implementation of the said proposal for In- Situ

¶15

¶16

Slum Rehabilitation scheme of Kusumpur Pahadi, referred to under the Original Application.”

¶17

DDA has disputed that Kusumpur Pahadi is situated within the Southern Central Ridge.

¶18

Counsel for DDA is directed to supply a copy of the reply to the applicant within one week.

¶19

Applicant will have an opportunity to file rejoinder to the same within four weeks thereafter.

¶20

I.A. No. 155/2025 has been filed by the applicant seeking to implead Indraprastha Gas Limited (IGL) as respondent no.6 on the plea that proposed respondent is indulging in illegal digging of the area for laying the piped gas supply connection to the illegal occupants of Kusumpur Pahadi. On due consideration, IA is allowed. Let the cause title of the OA be amended and newly added respondent be served by the applicant and affidavit of service be filed.

¶21

Respondents, whose reply is awaited, are directed to file their reply within four weeks.

¶22

List on 13.08.2025.

¶23

Prakash Shrivastava, CP

¶24

Dr. A. Senthil Vel, EM

¶25

April 09, 2025 Original Application No. 1151/2024 JG..

¶26

Society for Protection of Culture Heritage Environment Traditions and Promotion of National Awareness (Regd.) Also Known as [Sp-Chetna] v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Society for Protection of Culture Heritage Environment Traditions and Promotion of National Awareness (Regd.) Also Known as [Sp-Chetna] v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jindal Power Limited vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Jindal Power Limited vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Mr.Devanandbhai Ramabhai Kandoriya vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

M/S Shiva Quarry Works vs State Environment Impact Assessment Authority Gujarat

Radheshyam vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Radheshyam vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change

Pateshwari Prasad Singh vs

Ia No. 295/2024 in Misc Application in disposed of cases No. 124/2023 of Junaid Ayubi vs State of Uttrakhand

Mohd Maqbool Rather vs Ut of J&K through Pollution Control Committee

Vipin Kumar Saxena vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Hari Om Sharan Dwivedi vs Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board

News Item Titled "77 Cases of Illegal Felling of Conifer Trees Reported in J & K,S Doda" Appearing in the Daily Excelsior Dated 27.11.2024. vs

Akhilesh Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh through Chief Secretary

Suddu vs Ministry of Environment Forest and Climate Change